The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. AfD already closed as keep this month. El_C 19:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron_May (2nd nomination)[edit]

Ron_May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating for deletion because the subject is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norrick (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Kurykh 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BurritoVille[edit]

BurritoVille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability: local chain restaurant (Manhattan only) Feeeshboy 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Over a million people live in Manhattan, so I'm not concerned about the limited geographic range. There are a decent number of Google News results, as well. Zagalejo 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as popular tourist destination restaurant. Their food is popular with locals and tourists alike. Needs cites, reviews, etc. Bearian 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are quite a few Google news results but the articles now require payment. But based on the brief information, quite a few of the articles appear to be about Burritoville, so it look slike this artcile could be sourced. -- Whpq 13:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LOCAL. Wl219 10:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series running more than 10 years[edit]

List of television series running more than 10 years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Arbitrary cut-off point/inclusion criterion, and redundant to the superior List of longest running TV shows by category which is how this topic should be handled. Saikokira 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nom. "More than 10 years" is purely arbitrary -- why cut off there? Why should shows only in their 10th year be excluded? I agree, List of longest running TV shows by category is far superior. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The ten-year limit is exactly the kind of objective criterion that keeps this under control. "Longest" is an equally arbitrary criterion. The ten-year criterion allows listing multiple shows in each category, providing more information than the longest criterion. Useful compilation of information. Fg2 00:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, a ten-year limit isn't particularly arbitrary. Since we use a base-10 numbering system, we tend to consider multiples of 10 (and multiples of 5 to a lesser extent) to be more notable than say 9 or 11. Choosing ">10" versus ">=10" is arbitrary, but I don't think it's sufficiently arbitrary for deletion and in fact the actual inclusion criteria don't make it clear which is intended. While List of longest running TV shows by category is similar, it is not the same type of information; that lists one show per (semi-arbitrary) category while this lists all shows of sufficient longevity. On the matter of whether this list is preferable to a similarly-named category, I have no opinion. Anomie 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "list of" lists rarely pass muster and this is too arbitrary, so it can't establish why it is noteworthy. The fact that we use base 10 math and decades doesn't make the list more notable. Pharmboy 02:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING.. but no solid policy-based reason to keep yet.. Spazure 03:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Consists mostly of American shows, which are handled much better in List of longest running U.S. television series. There's enough to make a Canadian or non-American list, I suppose. Clarityfiend 06:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because 10 years is an arbitrary criteria and this information is well enough covered in the longest running shows article Corpx 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Clarity; this is primarily a list of American TV shows, with a few others thrown in. Worse, though, it's just a list of blue links with no explanation about what any show was about. It's a dull, throwaway list that you can find in a lot of books. I agree that 10 years is arbitrary, since a lot of successful shows retire after their seventh season, while they're still getting good ratings. Mandsford 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, with no prejudice towards future notability. —Kurykh 23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Stansberry[edit]

Craig Stansberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Never made it to major leagues. Violates WP:NN and WP:WPBB. Truest blue 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons.--Truest blue
• Neutral. "'Never' made it to the major leagues" is an inaccurate term, as the player is still active -- and of course if he gets called up he will merit an article per baseball notability guidelines. Has the baseball Wikiproject recommended a course of action for players on the 40-man roster? SliceNYC (Talk) 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Very tough call because on further inspection [1] it seems like he's very close to making the Majors, and it would be a case where you'd have to delete and then recreate him later on. Honestly, I could just as easily be convinced the other way. Chengwes 06:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Normally, I push to delete non-Major Leaguers, but if he's on the 40-man roster this late in the season, he'll possibly get a September call-up and see a game or two. If not, we can reconsider deletion in the off-season. Caknuck 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aarktica 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki surfing[edit]

Wiki surfing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. Non-notable phrase. Brianga 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt wasn't this created before? Also per nom. James Luftan 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO Spazure 06:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)forgot to sign when i made this comment, so timestamp on sig is wrong[reply]
• Comment. It might be interesting to note that the article asserts that the term was invented by “British teenager Tom Bagley” and...you guessed it: the author of the article is TomBagley. ●DanMS • Talk 06:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Out-and-out neologism. --Aarktica 14:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Reads like an Urban Dictionary entry... which isn't exactly a positive thing. --Entoaggie09 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't you find it funny that the article says that the term was created on July 27, 2007 yet the article was created on July 25? James Luftan ^contribs 03:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Different enough from Wikisurfing (a game) to not be subject to speedy deletion. However, it's a non-notable neologism with absolutely no sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The author is clearly attempting to pander "British Teenager Tom Bagley," which is, in fact, himself. 72.24.121.153 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable television programs[edit]

List of notable television programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Combination of indiscriminate information and loosely associated topics with unclear inclusion criteria that appears to be completely arbitrary. The title bears no relevance to the contents as the lists starts with Aaron Spelling and Regis Philbin, neither of whom are television programs. The intro bears no relevance either, suggesting it's a list of longest running TV shows. It's just a few bits of miscellaneous trivia. Saikokira 23:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think this list's inclusion criteria are so vague it doesn't even know what it's doing. I mean, it says "This is a list of longest running TV shows, by category. It also includes information on record breaking shows." That's pretty vague. However, it then lists a bunch of people, then a bunch of commercials, then a bunch of random facts. --Haemo 23:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for lists of loosely associated facts. In addition , as per Haemo, this list doesn't even know what it's doing. And really, even if it did follow the rules, wouldn't a list of notable TV programs be five miles long? TV's only been around since the 1930s you know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That impossible task is being attempted at List of television programs by name. Saikokira 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per a list of trivia facts.--JForget 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this grab bag of television trivia. --Bongwarrior 08:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A short, useless article that touches on rather random facts about trivia and blah. And yeah, it can't be complete, because it would then be too long. RaNdOm26 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too broad and subjective. Metamagician3000 12:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Stumpf[edit]

Eddie Stumpf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Absolutely nothing to validate article, per WP:NN. Truest blue 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons.--Truest blue 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no verification, doubtful notability even if verified. Realkyhick 23:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Following the sole link provided, it confirms he managed the Rockford Peaches (ok, they finished dead last, but still). [2] According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Guidelines, "Baseball executives, coaches, and managers are also notable." Clarityfiend 03:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. The coaches part only applies to MLB + MiLB, not "All-American Girls Professional Baseball League" Corpx 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The guideline only says it "includes" the MLB. The AAGPBL was the top (only) pro league for women. The connection with A League of Their Own doesn't hurt either. Clarityfiend 16:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are lots of less prominent baseball leagues - Independent league baseball (that are probably more prominent than this league), but I dont think coaches there should be automatically notable. Corpx

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raza (singer)[edit]

Raza (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

this article seems to contradict itself. He has one album to his credit and the author admits it was a failure. Yet the author claims he is notable for introducing a certain genre of music to his country. It is a stretch considering the album was a failure. I say nn musician. Postcard Cathy 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no sources, pretty much a failure. Realkyhick 23:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability guidelines. A google search shows up no reliable hits as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Music. - Cyborg Ninja 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Got It From My Mama (Genetics)[edit]

I Got It From My Mama (Genetics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced "single" with no sources - chart information in the infobox is obviously fake, especially if (as the article claims), the single was released this week. - eo 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, obviously a hoax. Incorrect chart positions seem to have been removed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The track is confirmed] despite the album not coming out yet. It needs cleaning up though. Jddphd 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why bother if that's all you can confirm? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitability? Jddphd 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, dubious at best. Realkyhick 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable song. James Luftan 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It exists and will be a single is not nearly enough information to warrant an article. 17Drew 05:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. It is a single, and has a video, and is very likely to hit the Billboard charts. Tom Danson 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Come back when it goes gold. A lot of songs hit the Billboard charts. Wikipedia isn't a press release. Mandsford 23:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The single HAS been confirmed, it has a video, and the official website for BEP confirmed. Although, someone should clean it up. 11:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.94.148 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo album[edit]

Taboo album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Supposed forthcoming album with no source information... and no information at all, really. Suggest merging to the artist page until some kind of official statement is issued from the record company. - eo 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just plain delete. No info to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pure speculation. Realkyhick 23:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without sources (and possibly even with them..), it looks like a case of WP:CRYSTAL to me.
• Delete: Just another case of WP:CRYSTAL, plus no reliable sources in the article as backup. RaNdOm26 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's not making an album, because BEP is making Roots to Fruits. Or at least, that's what the nonexistant/completely unreliable sources say. And if they say so, it must be true. 17Drew 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - highly speculative. Rumours and musings do not constitute reliable sources. -- Whpq 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems promotional too. Ebay3 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Vasquez[edit]

Carlos Vasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poor minor league baseball player. Article violates WP:NPOV AND WP:NN Truest blue 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons--Truest blue 22:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Rising to AA ball isn't exactly notable. Realkyhick 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Meets the clear and long-established requirements for sportsmen. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Golfcam 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notability. Found no popular press articles with him as the subject, he's apparently not earned any notable awards or honors, no Major League experience. --Sanfranman59 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He only played in the minor leagues and even the steroid issue doesn't make him that notable yet.--JForget 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article about a non-notable minor league player which lacks any kind of reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Waste Your Time (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

Don't Waste Your Time (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not confirmed, only rumor, can wait for IF/When it is a single Alankc 22:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no source for this info. Could also merge to the album article if necessary. - eo 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nom says it all. No sources to be seen. Could also be merged to album until confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, concur with the rest of the court. Realkyhick 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The Official UK Site of Kelly Clarkson has confirmed it [3]
• Keep. It has been confirmed. Peter2012 1.02, July 29 2007
• Keep. Confirmed, to the deletionists' fury. 68.194.50.41 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was confirmed in Kelly Clarkson's website & the Sony BMG UK website. Removed deletion tag because it's not longer needed. (Majority rule & Source proving the fact). Bull Borgnine 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the AfD tag to the article, since the page is still technically up for deletion. The tag should be removed when this AfD is over, and not before. Acalamari 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, sorry I removed it before it should have been removed. However, it will get deleted soon, so it won't make any difference. Bull Borgnine 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep, officially confirmed. RaNdOm26 10:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it's confirmed and there's a source. Acalamari 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep — nomination withdrawn. --Aarktica 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blosxom[edit]

Blosxom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOFTWARE, I used WP:PROD, but someone removed it. There are 0 third party sources. Jackaranga 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources, not notable. Realkyhick 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a small but notable-enough application. First, there are 3 million hits for "blosxom" on Google, and there's nothing except this called "blosxom". Second, those two Further reading books, from a significant publisher, discuss it at a level of detail (unfortunately, I don't have access to them to see how much). Third, Blojsom, a Blosxom derivative, is bundled with Mac OS X Server, and Blosxom is an official package for Ubuntu and other distributions. It seems to have 131 installs on the Debian Popularity Contest - I'm not sure whether that's a decent number, but there you go. Fourth, there are reviews and guides to Blosxom in reliable publications, such as this one in Guardian Unlimited, this one in Linux Journal, and another in MacUser, and we can add those sources to the article. Fifth, it's a core product of a developer (Rael Dornfest) who is at least notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. My only bias is that I still use it to run my blog. :) Dreamyshade 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ok I change my mind, I vote keep too. Jackaranga 09:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is notable; the article could make that clearer, but this is a fixer, not a trasher. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Verlander's No-hitter[edit]

Do we really need articles on every no-hitter, while this is a rather rare event, there is no reason why this no-hitter is special then any other, including perfect games or any other game for that matter. Wikipedia isn't a place for current sports news. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not even worth a redirect. Carom 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If Don Larsen's perfect game in the World Series doesn't merit its own article, then this doesn't stand a chance. Caknuck 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't believe this article does not document a "current" event (while it did happen this year, the facts in the article will not change over time). The fact that other no-hitter/perfect game articles do not exist is not a valid reason to delete this article; Larsen's perfect game probably does merit its own article anyway. I contend that the article is about a notable event as no-hitters are very rare. X96lee15 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Caknuck. —ShiningEyes 22:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No-hitters are not that rare. Perfect games are, though, and likely deserving of their own articles. Realkyhick 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's sufficient to include details of this game in Verlander's article and it should be mentioned in 2007 in baseball and 2007 Detroit Tigers season. It doesn't need its own article.
• Merge. This info should be tightened up and merged into the Verlander article in my opinion. There's plenty of room for expanding the no hitter section on his article. If it were to be kept, I would hope that the title would at least be changed. It kind of sounds like the creator has assumed that Jason will never have another one. If any individual games do deserve their own articles, it's perfect games. There's plenty of info to work with out there. There are whole books devoted to perfect games and their backstories. Kinston eagle 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge I think the main article is more then enough for this event.--JForget 01:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete enough information is covered on the subject in Justin Verlander already. T Rex | talk 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete If this was a perfect game I'd say otherwise. Acroterion _(talk) 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems just wrong-headed, if not foolish to say it is a current sports event or "news", as the original nominator said. It is a historical event that will remain unchanged forever. Unless Verlander pitches another no-hitter, I cannot image it being reduced in signifigance as time goes by. If other no hitters lack articles, then they might be added in the future. The article is large, not just a whimpy little two paragraph thing like too many articles on wikipedia and it might be a very interseting article to read in ten years or twenty years time- after all for Tiger fans it is one of six in their history, delete it now and you are denying future generations of this inning by inning analysis. As Reverend Lovejoy's wife says- "think of the children!" --Mikerussell 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - A person can look at the box score and see what happened. I'd encourage to creator to make this at wikinews, where it would be much more appropriate. Corpx 16:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I have been going to major league games since I was in grade 2 or something and I still have no idea how to read a box score. I thought only losers or electrical engineers sat in the crowd pissing away the joy of being there by recording it on to a scrap of paper. I think my girlfriend once smacked me in the head for just helping the nerd besides us with something he missed when he ran to washroom. My point- box scores are for losers. This article should remain it is much better then some stupid box score. Plus, it is not wikinews. The link Corpx just gives is proof against including it wikinews, not including it. --Mikerussell 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is no more deserving of an article than Barry Bonds breaking the record. When that happens, should there be an article about how he walked to the plate, the pitch counts, how he swung, where the ball landed etc? This was not even a perfect game :) Corpx 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am having trouble seeing any logic in the above statement. You are comparing a career achievement that took 15 seasons to accomplish with a single game event? Makes absolutely no sense. The article represents what a box score attempts to do- a discrete event that in this case is historically lasting and unchanging. A slice of permamnent Detroit Tiger history. "This was not even a perfect game"- where in wikipedia or baseball tradition does it say a perfect game deserves an article and a no-hitter doesn't? Pure arbitrary decision on your part, your subjective opinion alone, that says a perfect game deserves inclusion. The no-hitter certainly is a rare enough event to be notable, and I I just cannot understand with so much junk on wikipedia this deserves to be censored. It is factual, it has length and footnotes plus photos. It really has a lasting interest and will be read for many years to come. It certainly isn't recent news. --Mikerussell 17:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In attempting to apply real-world notability standards, consider this: a no-hitter is someting you tell people about when you come in to work the next day. A perfect game is something you tell your grandchildren about. There have been 17 perfect games in MLB history and 234 no-hitters, of which 17 were also perfect games. The problem for both achievements is that no-hitters make dull reading, and perfect games are worse - 27 up, 27 down. There's just not much to say. We have a List of Major League Baseball no-hitters already, and I just don't see that 234 articles on no-hitters are worthwhile if we can't even get 17 articles on perfect games - the most inherently notable single-game event in baseball. Inning-by-inning accounts of baseball games are straying into baseballcruft territory, which is (thankfully) relatively absent from Wikipedia. Just because there are 10,000 articles on Pokemon doesn't justify an equivalent degree of detail for baseball. Acroterion _(talk) 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you compare this to football, it'd be like writing an article every time a QB passes for over 500 yards, with descriptions on each play. I just dont think play by play or inning by inning level summary is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Is there really historic notability for a no hitter? No, in my opinion Corpx 19:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Verlander's profile. That seems fair enough. Otherwise, you're going to have 200+ other articles about no-hitters in Wikipedia. Chengwes 06:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - it's obviously a significant career achievement for a pitcher and deserves to be in the pitcher's article. What it needs is a good bit of gopyeditting in the merge to remove the excess detail. For comparison purposes, Dave Stieb's no-hitter, which stands as the first and only no-hiiter in franchise history for the Blue Jays is dealt with in a single sentence in his article. -- Whpq 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fortepiano in popular culture[edit]

The fortepiano in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this subject. The list is a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 21:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Of its "references" it doesn't seem to be the main subject of the occurences but an appendage. Reginmund 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another culturecruft list. Realkyhick 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, now these items are loosely associated. Punkmorten 10:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not worth merging into Fortepiano although nothing to stop anyone from briefly mentioning Amadeus or Sense and Sensibility in the main article. It's no more interesting than a list of films displaying a cotton gin. If a CD comes out entitled "Now THAT'S fortepiano!", this may become notable
• Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fortepiano. A list of fiilms/tv where one can be heard playing is useful for an obselete instrument. Johnbod 01:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Kerr[edit]

Jay Kerr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod contested and article has been improved. However, I still believe he is a non notable actor. Looking at his IMDB page, you see he is a sporadic actor who has had mostly one episode appearances spread out over many years (I didn't count but it is give or take ten shows). On one show, he made about 5 appearances. I see this more as a guy who enjoys acting and does it when he can and not a serious actor. Postcard Cathy 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think he passes the threshold for being notable.Callelinea 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Notable, but just barely. Realkyhick 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Article needs some expanding to include the WP:RS to confirm notability, but the information is certainly out there. Also if he has one fan site, he's likely got others, and a cult fan following is one of the marks for WP:BIO Spazure 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My STRONG opinion has always been that the info being "out there" takes a back seat to being "on here" You need not write a doctoral thesis on a topic to show notability. You can show notability with just a few choice sentences. You can write a very short article on Meryl Streep or Katherine Hepburn by saying "She is an oft nominated Academy Award nominee and winner with a large fan base...." and notability is established in that one sentence. You may not be able to write the kind of article that either actress deserves but with that one sentence you asserted notability and left the door open for the article to stay until someone could expand it. When this article was first prod'd by me, this guy spent enough time on this article to create more than a few sentences but only mentioned in passing he was an actor and spent more time discussing his other pursuits. None of those pursuits were notable. So, if we were going to focus on his acting for his notability, simply stating Kerr was/is an actor doesn't confer notability. Postcard Cathy 08:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, recurring role on 1st & Ten (a quasi-cult favorite of sports fans) just barely puts him over the top. --Dhartung | Talk 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foot fight[edit]

Foot fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In other news, sometime, somewhere in history, people have probably used their elbows, heads, etc in horseplay, games. This will never be codified enough to warrant an article Cander0000 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just not noteworthy enough. Nom says it all here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources to show "Foot fighting" is a notable sport, like Cock fighting. Edison 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at least until that sorry day when ESPN gives us "Extreme Foot Fighting," right after the No-Limit Old Maid event at the 2011 World Series of Poker. Realkyhick 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - here's the entire article; "Foot fights are a commonly used teenage party game where two or more people are barefoot, put their feet together and push.". Uh huh? Is that all? That covers, from my 1990's Scout Manual alone like a half-dozen different games. --Haemo 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleteone of the most pointless pages i have ever seen

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Life to Live title sequences[edit]

One Life to Live title sequences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this topic. Otto4711 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless proof of encyclopaedic worth produced. --Aarktica 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please, folks, what is notable about a history of title sequences? Realkyhick 00:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete WP:INTERESTING... but where's the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" WP:NOTE Spazure 03:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of significant coverage for this title sequence Corpx 16:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete — if reliable sources can be found which discuss the title sequences of this series, that would be sufficient to keep the article. (I happen to know that such sources exist for the title sequences of Doctor Who — they may or may not exist for One Life to Live.) However, if reliable sources cannot be found, then delete. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle For Destainia[edit]

The Battle For Destainia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN game with no non-advert or non-WP Ghits; article apparently serves only for advertisement. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete No assertion of notability, no sourcing. Caknuck 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per WP:N. —ShiningEyes 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:N Corpx 16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold T. Barrett Junior High School[edit]

Harold T. Barrett Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article seems to be point-of-view original research on a seemingly non-notable subject. SamBC 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability. Caknuck 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete-junior highs are not inherently notable. Chris 01:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per lack of notability Corpx 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 04:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Caknuck and GreenJoe. Bearian 13:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering with Management[edit]

Engineering with Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about non-notable program of study at Trinity College, Dublin. Article was initially WP:PROD'ed, author removed tag and somewhat improved article. Proposed merge with Trinity College article, which met with resistance from others that I'm inclined to agree with. - Fordan (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a program at the college, with no wider importance that leads to coverage in third-party sources. The appropriate location for this information is on their web pages, not Wikipedia. The college's article would best only briefly mention the general fields the institution offers degrees in, not the specific details. FrozenPurpleCube 21:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 04:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do strongly agree with the above comments. This article should go for deletion. Niaz bd 10:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article does not assert any notability --NAHID 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as it appears to be a unique program, which ought to be notable, but cites are desperately needed per WP:V. Bearian 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tandem Server (CMS)[edit]

Tandem Server (CMS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTABILITY, there are no third party sources, it's an advert. Jackaranga 20:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I added a 3rd party reference. Tandem Sever is a new CMS System so we do not have many 3rd party references, they are coming, we are just not widely known yet. I don't understand why this is being removed? You have a page dedicated to list different CMS Systems yet you don't allow a page to describe them? Have you looked at the cms system pages you have on your site now? why don't you just scrap the whole works? 90% of them violate the "guidelines" you have. How many 3rd party references do you need? i can probably get a couple more in a week or 2. This article is not meant to be an "advertisement" we are just trying to be diligent in including Tandem Server when CMS Systems are disscussed.Nyhtal 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found your article by looking through that list, I decided to use PROD on the rest when I saw how many there were going to be. Jackaranga 22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What do I need to do to keep my article on the site? Nyhtal 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)nyhtal[reply]

Comment Just come up with some references from third-party, independent sources. Notability is the only major concern here. See WP:NOTE for details. If you can prove notability (in the present, not "possibly in the future"), we'll keep it. Spazure 04:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also a problem with WP:COI if you read what Nyhtal said, he wrote this article to promote his software. Jackaranga 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you kidding me Jack? EVERY ONE OF THE CMS Systems in the list are promotions - you are nieve to think they are not. Like i said before why don't you just scrap the entire List page and all the CMS System pages there? THEY ARE ALL "ADVERTISEMENTS". They are products so they are an advertisement. Since you allow products to be listed then you should just limit them to no "sales pitches", which they are not, I think they fit the wikipedia way by just defining what they are. Again i say, why would you have a list page for the different CMS System if you are not going to allow anyone to list their system? Seems silly and a completely biased toward big name brand systems, don't you think? On a side note, I have listed a few "External Resources" for the system to make it notable. I hope this is good enough to get off the deletion status. There will be more resources listed and this page will be updated as time goes on as new things happen with Tandem Server, we plan on keeping this page up to date as much as possible. Nyhtal 29 July 2007

• Delete as failing WP:N, WP:RS. Among the many thing that Wikipedia is not is a place for products that are "new" or "not widely known yet" to become so. When/if the software becomes notable (with multiple, independent, non-trivial sources), it may be appropriate to re-create this. -- MarcoTolo 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBHcms[edit]

DBHcms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTABILITY, there are no third party sources, it's an advert. Jackaranga 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also reported the original creator at WP:UAA, because his username matches the name of the internet site promoting this product. Jackaranga 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable article possibly created for advertising purposes. —ShiningEyes 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought WP:SOFTWARE didn't count anymore? Either way though, an exhaustive search of the internet (which does count for this, because it's open-source, downloadable software) shows a lack of third-party coverage to meet notability WP:NOTE. Spazure 04:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm of the opinion of that the need for reliable sources for medical subjects is especially pressing and takes priority. El_C 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal Decay[edit]

Spinal Decay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism created by the article's principle author. No demonstration of notability, no references. Originally CSD'd as spam, but COI is not automatically spam, and as this isn't advertising a product, I decided to bring it here instead, as there is no CSD for neologisms AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sort of notable, if pages on Chiropractors' websites are believable. —Travis^talk 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I was sort of on the fence on this one. Yes, there are obviously plenty of Google hits. I was, however, afraid that there might also quite a few positives that talk about spinal decay in general and not about the term as it's specifically defined in the article. I did find some chiropractic literature that did at least mention the term and spinal decay patient's anamnesis and symptoms (though often in passing). Unfortunately, I do not have access to any medical databases. Upon closer examination, it becomes obvious that there are some false positives but I also think that there are many sources that deal specifically with this phenomenon/syndrome. At this point, it's probably pretty obvious that I'm not a doctor (and that I don't play one on TV either) and, while this may not become a FA anytime soon, I still think that the term is sufficiently notable and that there are enough reliable sources out there to keep the article. --S ^up? 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Pubmed has no articles with the phrase in the title or abstract--and neither does Scopus. the conclusion is that it is not notable as science. It is used by chiropractors, but again not in professional journals--the article explains fairly well that it is a very generic popular term for spinal problems at various stages. I couldn't find a conventionally RS online. DGG (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Spinal Decay, you see, is apparently a term used exclusively in chiropractic, so it's not exactly medicine. Therefore, I'm not surprised that you couldn't find it in medical references. —Travis^talk 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Chiropractors are not doctors. This is psuedo-science not medicine. This is not a term recognised by proper medical journals or qualified doctors. It's misleading to present it as medicine because it is actually voodoo. Nick mallory 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable neologism, coined by an apparently non-notable "doctor". Pubmed has exactly zero hits for "spinal decay", while it has >3000 hits for "chiropractic". So while it is easy to establish the notability of the latter, irrespective of whether one believes it is pseudoscientific or not, the former simply does not have secondary, reliable sources that are needed to write an article. Note that especially for health related matters, it is worse to have half-baked articles based on non-reliable sources (such as the ones given by google), than no article at all. Abecedare 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: JonFursh (talk · contribs) has created other articles (The Furshpan Maneuver, Bernard Furshpan) that were deleted as blatant spam, advert and comment. Abecedare 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources other than the author's and a few other chiropractors' websites. Also per Abecedare's "health related matters" argument. —Travis^talk 14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Neologism. If somebody wanted to find more information about it, they could read about spondylosis or degenerative disc disease. Like everyone else said, the "doctor" is a chiropractor who has repeatedly added spam to WP. Original research, and was added by the "doctor" himself. - Cyborg Ninja 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've read a lot of medical reports and "spinal decay" doesn't seem to have caught on. Chiropractors tend to have a little more leeway in making up new terms, but even the chiropractic association doesn't seem to endorse this one. "Degenerative disc disease" is the equally scary sounding term that physicians use for the process going on with all of us. Mandsford 23:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 03:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katiki Point Lighthouse[edit]

Katiki Point Lighthouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article has little to no notability as there are no other independent sources I can find that report on it. It also has only one internal encyclopaedic link. Also note that there are no articles regarding "Katiki Point" or even "Katiki. Reginmund 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now, not that that's particularly relevant. Keep. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found some sources of info: NZ Gov't Photos and details and More general info Most of the rest of what I found was travel- or photography-related, however. The article clearly needs work, but I find this lighthouse no less notable than most of the rest on Wikipedia. —Travis^talk 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is also known as Moeraki or Katigi, so searching on these terms will find additional articles, like Moeraki and Moeraki Boulders on WP plus additional ones via Google.--Mendors 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Other New Zealand lighthouses have articles, so why have a red link to this one? The article may need work with regards to refs, but it's only 2 days old. Further more, look at Moeraki. It's commonly known as the Moeraki Lighthouse but that's not actually the name bestowed upon it from Maritime NZ --Hayden5650 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perusing the links I previously posted will easily clarify the name issue per Hayden5650. I also point out that lack of a WP article is not in itself evidence of non-notability. —Travis^talk 22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added additional references to the article, including linking it with some Maori traditions which are covered by some NZ government treaty settlement legislation.--Mendors 23:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In the US, all lighthouses are fairly important as local tourist attractions as well as due to their history, restoration/conservation efforts, etc. Unless there's reason to think the situation is very different in NZ, this should be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Bduke 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A notable lighthouse and the article is now sourced. --Bduke 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sourced article and lighthouse seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This lighthouse has been working for 125 years, I wonder if Wikipedia will last so long. It's a good article now and well sourced. Nick mallory 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps we could wind up this discussion now? There seems to be an overwhelming majority of editors in favor of keeping the article. --Hayden5650 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Historic and restored lighthouse. --Oakshade 01:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep deserves to be kept for above reasons Delighted eyes 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Other lighthouses in New Zealand are notable, why not this one. Malathos 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. In addition to the other arguments, this lighthouse's link with Yellow-eyed penguins, and Janice Jones work while living there make this really quite notable.--Limegreen 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the above, the current version of this article conveys notability. Burntsauce 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet 115[edit]

Sonnet 115 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One of a large set of mini-articles. I listed it for speedy deletion under db-context since there is no explanation as to who wrote the sonnet and even what a sonnet is. I have since been told that not only does this not need to be done, since it is one of a set of presumably similar articles, but the Original Research interpretation and lack of sources is not a problem. This may require further AfDs to the entire set. Corvus cornix 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but with clean-up --Onceonthisisland 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless this gets seriously re-written. The synopsis is completely original research, and lists no reliable sources for an analysis of the poem. I just added a short lead, but it's incredibly basic and also needs more expansion. The article is more or less a plot summary, which violates WP:NOT. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient references available Addhoc 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Part of a set of articles on Shakespeare's sonnets, all of which merit individual articles. Golfcam 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Well, notability is not inherited, so I almost went delete, but I'm sure with enough searching, we could find the proper coverage to confer notability for the particular sonnet, and this run on sentence is giving me a headache, but I'm in a very weird mood and at least I'm only doing it on a talk page, so I'm going to go ahead and go with keep, unless we can come up with a strong reason to delete it (instead of, say .. fixing it). Spazure 04:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Get thee to a library! There has been an enormous amount of critical commentary on every word Shakespeare ever wrote. I'd be extremely surprised if this sonnet is an exception. Zagalejo 04:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I doubt there's a Shakespearian sonnet that isn't notable. (Someone's trying to Kill Bill. Don't Mess With Bill.) Clarityfiend 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zagalejo spazure (contribs) 09:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Laughable this was even nominated for deletion. Seems the article was just added the day before, too. - Cyborg Ninja 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable subject, just needs some time to grow (more than 24 hours)--Entoaggie09 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, the subject is clearly notable an merits encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casiotone Nation[edit]

Casiotone Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN as listed in WP:N. No sources. No links. No albums released. No national tours listed. Official website is empty. Advertising. Btl 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only claims of notability in the article are doing well in two contests (which I can't confirm, 'cause it appears most of the references to them are in German; I *think* I can order a beer in German, that's about the extent of it), and as the nom indicates, there's no real approach to meeting WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll add a mention in Lyle E. Littlefield Ornamentals Trial Garden as DGG suggests. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Clapp Greenhouses[edit]

Roger Clapp Greenhouses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear notable enough for separate article. Merge to University of Maine, or delete outright. SarekOfVulcan 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Preferred merge would be to Littlefield Garden, as below.--SarekOfVulcan 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - having it separate allows it to be better categorized. GlassFET 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its a single research facility within a single department. Fundamentally no more notable than any other such facility--all large bio depts have greenhouses, and animal care facilities, and so on, almost none of which will be notable. Some will be named, raising money being the sort of art that it is. But since it has a small public display element (3,000 sq ft), it could be mentioned in the article on their botanic garden, Lyle E. Littlefield Ornamentals Trial Garden. I think most botanic gardens would be notable. DGG (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per lack of independent sources attesting to notability Corpx 16:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Corpx and DGG. Nice facility and all, but the requirements of WP:SCI are sorely lacking here. --Aarktica 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was I realized I !voted below, but after further consideration, I looked much further into this article and it absolutely a WP:BLP nightmare. None of these nicknames are sourced, and some could be considered borderline libel. As such, this article is being Speedy Deleted per WP:BLP concerns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs)

List of sportspeople by nickname[edit]

List of sportspeople by nickname (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I discovered this list while cleaning up useless redirects. Very poorly sourced article, almost no references at all, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. It also seems like every athelte who ever played got a nickname, so it's a endless list. Fails WP:RS WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:V, WP:NOT and possibly WP:OR. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eep. Delete per nom. That will be painful-to-impossible to maintain properly...--SarekOfVulcan 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. That page is unsourced and enormous. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolute definition of "list of loosely associated topics" Only thing these people have in common are that they have a nickname and they competed in an athletic event. Corpx 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That's a list of loosely associated topics if I've ever seen one. —Travis^talk 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I didn't underatand how the list was organized at first, so I now disagree with my earlier !vote. However, the list is too long with nearly 1,500 entries, so long in fact, that it crashed Firefox with wikEd installed when I opened it for editing. Clearly, if it is to be kept, it needs to be split up. —Travis^talk 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm usually hard on lists, but I have to say, I don't see the problem with this one. So it's a list of nicknames by which athletes have been known; I don't see that as loosely associated items, as in many of the more trivial "List of songs about …" articles, since in those cases the songs and the topics mentioned are truly loosely associated and the items are mutually irrelevant. I could do without the ones coined by Chris Berman, though. Deor 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I've amended this nom by adding the usual line of links and the "Remove this template" notice at the top. I hope I've done it correctly. Deor 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this article is that one of the most poorly sourced articles on wikipedia, most of the nicknames looks like they were nicknamed by the fans, and likely won't get any Reliable sources never with the exception of a few nicknames, many of the nicknames I checked in google are just passing trivial mentions or blogs. In a way WP:BLP applies here as well. I know AFD isn't for cleanup, but this is unsalvageable as it stands. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sorry, almost all the nicknames I'm seeing are well-known. The sourcing may be thin, but sources can be added (and if the nicknames are sourced in the persons' articles, I don't think they need be sourced here as well). I guess what I'm saying is that I don't consider that the idea of this list violates policies or guidelines, so any problems can be handled via discussion and cleanup. ("One of the most poorly sourced articles on wikipedia" is a hyperbole that's forgivable in a discussion, but I find it hard to believe that you really consider it so. I've seen many, many more poorly sourced ones.) Deor 03:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really dont think WP should be a nickname database. Nicknames should be mentioned in individual articles, with appropriate sourcing, but this is just a trivial list. Corpx 15:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Usefulness is a strong argument when it comes to lists, since that is, after all, their purpose. The usefulness of this one is absolutely obvious. It makes it easier to navigate articles and helps readers who remember that some sports figure's name was "The Animal" but just can't remember the guy's name. Yes, you could use a search engine to find something, but, like everything else is supposed to be in Wikipedia, this is a tool that makes the search for information faster. And if you had two or three nicknames to look up, this would be manna from heaven. The subject itself, nicknames of sports figures, is encyclopedic, it seems to me. If we're going to have articles on sports figures, organized at an essential level by name, then a list of alternate names is valuable.Noroton 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep great subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delighted eyes (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 July 2007
• Keep Athletes tend to be known by nicknames more than most other prominent people, simply because sports reporters create them. This list takes the approach of running from Ace to Zeko; it's a plus that it's not limited to Americans. Mandsford 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete. Jaranda has it right, it's failing every single one of those policies and guidelines, and thus has no place in Wikipedia. Most of the keeps seem to be WP:ILIKEIT's, as they do not answer the policy concerns raised by the nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen M. Hartley-Nagle[edit]

Karen M. Hartley-Nagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. Her biggest claim to fame seems to be loosing a congressional election, and is head of a foundation that isn't notable enough to have a wikiarticle. No refs asserting notability other than relating to her failed election bid. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO:Politicians.--SarekOfVulcan 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not a major-party candidate for a national legislature--an independent candidate for House of Representatives, and a losing candidate for the Democratic nomination DGG (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Bearian 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKSUM[edit]

BLOCKSUM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, Japanese indie game. Only claim to notability is an (unverified) student award. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the page the award should be on [4]. Doesn't appear to be there. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) As the article says "7th CESA student game award in 2005" (even though 2005 was the 9th), I've also checked the 7th [5] and the 2005-2006 awards [6]. None of these lists appear to mention this game, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per JohnnyMrNinja's link.--SarekOfVulcan 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This[7] is perhaps the award that the article says. The link that the nominator (JohnnyMrNinja) showed is to CESA game awards, not to the CESA 'Student' game awards. Aside from that, the subject of this afd would be apt for having an article on Wikipedia since this game is introduced in the Gamespot[8] and the Gamefaqs[9]. --Neko jarashi 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well pointed-out, that was all I could find in English and I just assumed it was the same thing. The subject still fails notability, as in "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Even without considering the fact that Gamespot has BLOCKSUM for available for download (meaning it doesn't really count as independent), or the fact that GameFAQs is part of Gamespot, or that both entries are possibly edited by fans (GameFAQs for sure is), neither one has any significant coverage. Gamespot has "Join numbered tiles together to combine their values, and clear them by matching that number of similarly valued tiles together." Is that considered significant? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the link, Neko jarashi. The machine translated version isn't easy to make sense of but it might very well verify that article's claim. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. The Gamespot link is a two-edged sword: it is a major website but we're not talking about a review or any form of editorial content here - the link goes to the games subpage which is listed under 'Downloads'. As I understand it, it's possible for registered Gamespot users to upload content now. Another fact to consider is the Gamespot ranking which, as I'm writing this, is at number 37,351 of 39,732 overall and number 6,524 of 8,377 in the PC downloads section. And even though it may be up to debate whether Gamespot is a reliable source in other contexts, I think in this case it clearly isn't. Gamefaqs is virtually the same story (well, both sites are owned by the same company) and there's even less information there. Google also finds various blog posts and alternative download sources (and judging from the video is looks very interesting) but I'm afraid this isn't enough for me. In terms of notability, we may have the award but unless I'm missing something (and that's always a possibility), nothing else. Therefore, I'd advocate deleting the article. S ^up? 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep(But,I don't have no right to vote yet...) I'm the author.I almost agree with Neko jarashi.--ARIYA,Ginzang 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it leads to another All your base are belong to us. Trynton Shines 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That game seems to commercially be remade into a cellular phone game[10]. So if Gamespot isn't a valid citation, there is still justification to keep this article. By the way, what's to do with "All your base" stuff? Need I say, "Y'all on da way ta destruction!" or anything? --Neko jarashi 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only independent source is a comment on a Japanese-language web site, for which no translation is provided. Since we depend on secondary sources to show notability, I believe this is not enough. (The machine-translated comment does not seem to establish the passing of any particular standard of quality). EdJohnston 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Franks[edit]

Bobby Franks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This 14 year old murder victim is known only for being killed in 1924 and fails to satisfy WP:BIO. The crime is notable and is already fully covered at the article about the infamous thrill killers Leopold and Loeb who were defended by Clarence Darrow in a famous trial. A merge or redirect could also be appropriate. Edison 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to L&L per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Leopold and Loeb. Likely search term for someone interested in the case, no notability other than as the (unfortunate) victim in the case, all information can be incorporated into the article on the killers. Carom 21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to L&L. Not notable enough for own article. Realkyhick 00:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While Wikipedia is not a memorial, Bobby Franks became a household name in the 1920s. As such, he is indeed notable enough for an entry page here. I also do not see how Franks fails WP:BIO. Regardless of how he became notable, he surely is notable. ExRat 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an exception--I think both he and the killers are separately notable in this instance.DGG (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one, since he's, basically, one of the most famous murder victims of all time. I recognized the name instantly. Zagalejo 04:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "Lindbergh Baby" kidnapping murder was more notable than the Leopold and Loeb thrill killing of Bobby Franks, but we have only an article on the Lindbergh kidnapping and not a memorial article about 1 year old Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Junior. Nor is there a memorial article about the wife murdered by Hawley Harvey Crippen in another famous murder of the early 2oth century. Had the two killers managed to pick up one of their other potential victims that they considered that day, Bobby Franks would not have gained any notoreity as their victim. We normally have an article about the crime, and not the victim, unless he was otherwise notable. The article is sourced only by someone's website, and has no sources so far satisfying WP:A. The article only has 1 or 2 sentences not presently in the target article about Leopold and Loeb, which fully describes the crime and the trial, and would be a good place to merge the few additional words about the victim in this article. He only gets passing reference in articles about the killers or the trial, which does not establish notability per WP:N. Arguments such as "I have heard of him" and "I think he is notable" really do nothing to tip the balance toward keeping the article, since this is not a vote. Edison 05:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I know that there are some biographical details about Franks that are not included in the article. Stuff like this. That's not a great counter-argument, but I don't think this is an issue for AFD anyway. There's no conceivable reason to delete the page outright. At the very least, it'll be turned into a redirect. People can just hash out the details on the talk pages. Zagalejo 06:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At least as notable as Ronald Goldman. Edward321 02:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The observation that other probably deletion-worth articles exist is not a valid argument for keeping the one under discussion. Edison 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Loeb and Leopold. I'm not impressed with the article at all, which is not about the victim, despite its well-meaning title. I'm of the opinion that if a criminal rates an article, then his victims should be written up as well, although generally as part of the article on the crime. Obviously, we couldn't have individual articles about victims of a serial killer, save for those where the victim became as prominent as the killer (as with Ron Goldman or Sharon Tate). In this case, the author tells us nothing about the 14 year old Chicago boy who happened to live across the street from a couple of assholes. Mandsford 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You suggest that articles of victims should be written when the victims become as prominent as their killers - Bobby Franks was nearly a household name in the 1920s in the USA, possibly as much so as Ronald Goldman. I would even dare say that many people still recognize the name. That alone makes him notable. I do however agree that that article needs major work, but I certainly think he merits his own inclusion on Wikipedia. I don't think a redirect is what is necessary; just a major overhaul with more information on Franks. Bobby Franks was and is a notable individual. ExRat 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia doesn't have to be a memorial to have articles about notable murder victims. This person is a well-known part of Chicago history and the article needs improvement and cleanup, not deletion. A Merge would be acceptable. The Parsnip! 04:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Badami[edit]

Anthony Badami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

He isn't really that notable. It seems like this was written either by himself or someone that knows him. Eggy49er 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator, please place a proper WP:AFD notice on the page. WP:PROD is not a nomination for deletion via this process. (Also, placing a prod three minutes after an editor edits is counter-productive. Prod is not useful for articles being actively edited. They will simply be disputed, and we end up here anyway.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the AfD tag to this page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My bad. Thanks for telling me. I'll make sure to do that for now on. Eggy49er 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails WP:BIO, I think. Mentioned in multiple independent sources is not the same as covered in them. Article claims national significance: coverage is local. Delete -- if not, MAJOR rewriting needed.--SarekOfVulcan 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO for *ahem* less-than-stellar achievements. Agree with the assessment that it looks like a friend of the subject created this.--Sethacus 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY DELETE! It's a shout-out from a buddy. Not even close to being notable. Good grief! Realkyhick 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree it should be deleted (I just haven't put in a !vote because my reasons are the same as those already stated), it's not a speedy, because it doesn't actually meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Do you perhaps mean "strong delete"?
• Delete there is actually a claim to notability hidden there, though obviously not a sufficient one 14th place finish in the nationals for the high school National Forensic League competition for extemporaneous speaking. it apparently got him into Brown, but that isnt notable enough, no offense to Brown people here. But it looks like one of his friends did a remarkable amount of work.DGG (talk)`

• delete this article is very strange as it seems a lot of stuff on someone completly unknown i personally think he must have been up all night and i hope his mum brought him up a cup of cocoDelighted eyes 03:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per SarekOfVulcan. Too bad, as it is a great article, well sourced, well written, but about a local celebrity. When he wins a Rhodes scholarship, then he'll be nationally notable. Bearian 16:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 19:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workitu Ayanu Gurmu[edit]

Workitu Ayanu Gurmu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Initially nominated for Speedy under CSD-A7, it seems unclear what assertion of notability is here; I would suggest that, as the article stands, the subject seems to be non-notable. SamBC 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Marginal notability at best as an athlete. Her top showing seems to be the 6th place finish.--Sethacus 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No medal/podium finish, no notability. One race could change this, of course. Such is life. Realkyhick 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Realkyhick - one doesn't have to win a medal to be notable. Such a view have no grounds whatsoever in the relevant Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. (...) Athletes: Competitors who have played (my emphasis) in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis (or athletics; my comment)." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Moussambani ended with keep because the athletes in question had "participated in a major international competition". A similar case was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Róża Kasprzak. Workitu Ayanu Gurmu has not only participated in the principal event in African athletics, she even reached the final and achieved a quite high place there. Now, the important question: Does the All-Africa Games count as a sufficiently high level of the sport? The answer is a whole-hearted YES, at least when it pertains to running, as African runners show an almost complete dominante the event in question. Workitu Ayanu Gurmu is even number 12 on the current world list.^[11] Number 12 in the world, huh? (note: the reason I have not added this fact to the article is that rankings tend to change during the season and are thus hard to maintain. But this time would have secured an eleventh place at the last World Championships.^[12]) As for claims of marginal notability - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer ended with keep since he has played seven minutes in a professional football league. I started that AFD but the outcome was fair and square, given the notability guidelines which have not changed since then. Come on, this athlete has participated for twice as long as Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer in a top-level (yes, top-level in a global perspective) athletics final :) Punkmorten 09:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that I started the article. Punkmorten 09:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Sethacus. Aarktica 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about founding your views in Wikipedia guidelines? Punkmorten 11:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. W. Richards[edit]

R. W. Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article fails to meet Wikipedia notability standards as outlined in WP:BIO Golem88991 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless evidence he passes WP:BK is uncovered. Novels are published by "Rokam Publications" which no longer exists and gets 0 ghits, suggesting it's unnotably small, a vanity publisher, or a self-publication. Otherwise the article seems WP:COATRACKed to highlight the dispute with the student. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:BK.--Sethacus 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete only 4 or 5 library holdings for the books. conceivably the debate coach for the national champions at the high school level might be notable, but he has only state level championships to his team's credit. DGG (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maine State Building[edit]

Maine State Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This building isn't notable. Eggy49er 19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, seems marginally notable to me. Changing to keep per Dhartung and Eddie's additions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one of the few surviving structures from the Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the last great World's Fair. Structure is on the National Register of Historic Places since 1974.[13] Designed by Charles Sumner Frost, a Chicago architect[14] who should have an article but does not.--Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- per Dhartung. --Boricuaeddie 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I've added the references provided by Dhartung to the article. --Boricuaeddie 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Historic buildings are prime encyclopedia fodder. —Xezbeth 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable building. Golfcam 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per listing on the National Register of Historic Places. A cursory Google search would have revealed, within the first or second pages, that the building is listed on the National Register and is indeed historic and notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Golfcam, Elkman, Dhartung, and Boricuaeddie, and WP:HEY. I also wikified it a bit. Bearian 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Cricket[edit]

Beer Cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable drinking game; Wikipedia is not for things made up at college one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced and a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not. Minimal Google results for a search, no apparent reliable sources to verify it either. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a place for instructions for how to play a drinking game made up in school one day. —Travis^talk 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the author of this article, I can assure you that this was not a game "made up in school one day." The game really is of New Zealand origin. I would not be too shocked to not find anything on google about a drinking game. Is Wikipedia only a place for the most mainstream of things? Even if the game were, as you say, "something made up in school one day," I cannot think of a modern drinking game not of such origins. The article is written professionally. It chronicles a real game played in real places. The sourcing for other similarly listed drinking games is suspect at best, and in many cases also totally lacking. I see no reason to strike it from the database. Clark P. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I made a cheeky statement earlier, and I meant no offense by it. What I was trying to point out, however, is that Wikipedia articles must have verifiable sources to assert their notability. I am not questioning whether the game is real, but you have provided no sources to back up your text. As for the other drinking games, just because they have articles, it is not automatic justification for another. Please don't take this personally; provide proper sources and your article may be keep-worthy. —Travis^talk 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Let me say that I understand the need for sourcing. Were this article on a person, place, or thing, I would vote to delete as well. It is not, however, on any of those things. It is on a game, and a very fun game at that. Will people searching Wikipedia for new and exciting drinking games benefit from having this article posted? The answer is a resounding yes. I mean, if I went to one of these websites that houses rules for drinking games, posted the rules there, and then sourced that on Wikipedia it would then be keep-worthy? Needless to say, were the article to remain, six months from now it could be predicted that sources would appear of people writing about what a cool game they've played. Clark P.165.219.245.62 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article has no sources and the author indicates that there aren't any. We need independent sources to indicate notability. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of sources. I'm sure Beer pong got deleted when it first appeared, too, but people went to extraordinary lengths to source that silliness, so now we have an article on it. Find sources, restore article. PS: I really, really really, wish people would stop capitalizing game names as if they were proper names. What next? Are we going to eat Dinner, then watch a Movie and pet the Cat? We're supposed to be speaking English here, not German. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP DELETE FOR LACK OF SOURCES????????????????? That makes no sense AT ALL. IF WikiPedia is concerned with validity/verifiability and gasp, SOURCES, they simply become a mirror for anything anybody could go find on Google. Is WP simply a MIRROR for GOOGLE? If so, most of their content immediately becomes non-unique, and thus less interesting. The fact that it does not appear on Google, makes this article PREMIUM. Especially when you're dealing with a localized game from NZ that is especially difficult to communicate and explain. That somebody has finally taken the time to nail down the particulars, even though it does not appear elsewhere on Googleland, should be embraced!!! DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!! p.s. anything anybody links on WP for popular culture is a sham anyways. You think a bogus link adds credibility? 71.191.97.240 17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)PK— 71.191.97.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Simply has no notability. --Malcolmxl5 20:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Come back when there are sources that make this notable and make it meet our policy. It currently fails to do this. --Bduke 06:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Hawk Nelson. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kevin Dunn[edit]

Jason Kevin Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was speedy deleted as A7 per the last AfD. This time it may need to be either speedied again or salted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I speedied it before, and it was pointed out to me that it did in fact assert notability. So, I undeleted it, and cut a lot of cruft out of it. - Philippe | Talk 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Subject is member of a notable band, so it meets WP:MUSIC. --Boricuaeddie 19:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks for pointing that out. If he's a member of a notable band, then I would recommend a speedy merge to the band in question. Member doesn't seem notable enough to stand out on his own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Hawk Nelson. As posted article was a copy of a MySpace profile (or something). Wikipedia is not a social networking site (at least not in this way). --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hawk Nelson. All the information on the article is already there. --Boricuaeddie 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of emo/screamo groups[edit]

List of emo/screamo groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's already a sufficient list of bands under Category:Emo musical groups, and most of the bands referenced here are redlinked. TheLetterM 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This list is unnecessary and redundant. --Cheeser1 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Delete.Ragaxus 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another list with loose inclusion criteria that's better served by a category! Corpx 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, per nom. —ShiningEyes 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is what a category is for. --Haemo 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Haemo and Corpx. Listcruft/unsourced indeed.--JForget 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bad state today and not useful tomorrow. Punkmorten 10:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Bearian 14:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus and nominator withdrawal. Ryanjunk 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avira[edit]

Avira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded by me almost a year ago was deprodded and almost a year later there still aren't any multiple independent reliable sources giving any indication of notability. Whispering 18:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me nom withdrawn. Whispering 11:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Their product, but not the company, has been reviewed by the BBC and PCMagazine.--Sethacus 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, Lots of people know products and not the companies, and to me this makes the parent company article worthy if the product is notable. Giving some slack because it is AV and the importance of AV both "today" and historically in this era. Pharmboy 00:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Rename, and slight rewrite There isn't an exisiting article for their product, Antivir. Since Antivir doesn't exist yet (it's a redirect to Avira), and since this article is mostly about Antivir (and not Avira) anyway, I suggest switching the redirect for the article title (and vice versa), and a rewrite of the lead. Spazure 04:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep provided revisions are made to satisfy WP:CORP guidelines. --Aarktica 14:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Aarktica. Kayaker 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete still no independent sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 05:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources would be necessary to meet your personal opinion of "coverage in multiple sources"? spazure (contribs) 06:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think ~30 million users of Avira's products guarantee the notability?--Petrim 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Resmebles a textbook chapter. May be recreated if more than that one source is used, so as to establish notability. El_C 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational dimensions of information[edit]

Organizational dimensions of information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:N. This article lists precisely one book as a source (I actually don't have access to it). Google returns mainly hits containing the term "Organizational dimensions of information systems", which does not seem to be the same concept. The article might rather be a book summary. Expert review request to WikiProject Business and Economics turned up nothing. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete looks more like an excerpt from a business book than than something that can stand on its own. Should have specific references, not just one reference to the book the whole thing came from. -Steve Sanbeg 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Oli Filth 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete tagged a long time ago for further work that never happened. Mandsford 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of frivolous political parties[edit]

List of frivolous political parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mostly redundant to Category:Joke political parties Will ^(talk) 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly not at all redundant with the category. The list provides two significant advantages - firstly, the list entries provide information above and beyond the cateogory (since it's sorted by where the party was located, not just alphabetically - additionally, it contains other information a category can't, like whether a party is still active) and secondly, it contains redlinks to encourage develop of relevant future articles. There's also some content at the bottom of the list which discusses the phenomena in fiction, which isn't appropriate for a category at all. WilyD 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the list of fictional parties should be in the main article. (That, and I'm in half a mind to add Election Night Special to the category). Will ^(talk) 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it should be, but the "organisation by country" feature is one of the prime reasons for a list per WP:LIST WilyD 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, lists and categories are both acceptable ways of grouping and navigating articles. They are complementary rather than redundant (see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). These articles have an obvious connection and therefore a list is fully appropriate. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, didn't we just go through this a few months ago? Do we have to keep on having this debate again and again? Zsero 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per reasons given Reginmund 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. List is not redundant, as it provides more information than a category could. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons given above. --Bduke 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons listed above. ajdlinux | utc 07:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Structured lists providing more info than a category as per WP:LIST. Davewild 08:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the great things about living in a democracy is the right to be frivolous. Mandsford 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant feature. --Soman 11:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a Speedy Keep over here in the circumstances, or is there any particular point in that any more? Mind, I'm impressed by the way this discussion has stuck to the nominator's claim and not erupted in a rematch over whether we should nuke the whole subject. Thanks, folks. --Kizor 12:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Naruto: Ninja Council 3. --Coredesat 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Ninja Concil 3[edit]

Naruto Ninja Concil 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to violate Not a Crystal Ball; no sources to indicate notability; so poorly written that I don't know whether this is supposed to be entitled "Concil" or "Council" or "Console" or something else. Definitely not encyclopedic, whatever it is. Nyttend 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thousand Years of Death!!! Er...delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whispering 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references and scant information. Oh, and the crystal ball bit, as well. —Travis^talk 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per A Link to the Past. —Travis^talk 10:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Exterminate per nom. --Agamemnon2 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect - [15] - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete all, a7, no credible assertion of notability -- making the ridiculous, unverified claim of selling "a billion copies" does not save these articles from speedy deletion. NawlinWiki 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hook's Right Hand[edit]

Hook's Right Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not-notable band as per WP:MUSIC. Their MySpace [16] (which lists the same band member names as the Wikipedia article) says they were formed in 2005, played some local clubs and have so far recorded "one song for the promotional use". Unverifiable nonsense claims such as their debut album released in 1986 selling billion copies, their first tour attracting 625,000 fans and them having a Billboard Hot 100 hit, obviously, do not check out. Karaboom 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Speedy?) delete. Seems like nonsense.-Wafulz 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy lynn[edit]

Guy lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable unsourced article. Harlowraman 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not apparently notable even if real. --Dhartung | Talk 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to weak keep after revisions. --Dhartung | Talk 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - this is clearly a nonsense article. Oli Filth 17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Parts of this seem unlikely and are certainly unverifiable (ie Musical, sausages, nickname etc) but Guy Lynn is a BBC reporter in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire as claimed [17] [18] and even won an award from the Royal Television Society--Slp1 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, nonsense bits have been removed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak keep But wouldn't want to use the as the test for notability, or a good article. Pharmboy 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he's notable and the facts can be verified. Needs exapansion. Bearian 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Entry lacks content (!). El_C 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Abrahamists[edit]

Persecution of Abrahamists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article essentially has no content other than links to our existing articles Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Anti-Mormonism, and Persecution of Muslims. No indication that this catchall term is anything but a neologism. NawlinWiki 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems like at best those links might merit a "see also" in the article Abrahamic Religion. Moonriddengirl 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as apparently there is not enough material for an article, although I don't know where "neologism" comes into play. Is putting two words together a neologism, now? Instruction creep? --Dhartung | Talk 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was just trying to make the point that there's no reason to have an article with this title, because there's no evidence that anyone actually uses the phrase "Persecution of Abrahamists". It doesn't matter to me whether we call it a neologism or not. NawlinWiki 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a bit strict. So if we had a source that discussed "harassment of Abrahamists" or "Abrahamists beat up" or "Abrahamists discriminated against" or whatnot, we'd be unable to say "persecution" or wrap all these things into one article? Sometimes the "does the source use THIS EXACT PHRASE" thing is taken too far. --Dhartung | Talk 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because no actual content. Disagree with the neologism position of the nom, though. Oli Filth 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or change into a category to contain those articles linked to in this article. Nyttend 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; little more than a useless disambiguation page. Ragaxus 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Liftarn still seems to be disappointed that Persecution of Germanic Pagans is only a disambiguation page and that he did not get Religious discrimination against Asatru linked at Template:Religious persecution; See the respective discussion pages. Zara1709 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or let's just replace this with a list of Persecution of Everyone in the World and throw in a bunch of other links. Mandsford 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since the expression "Abrahamist" is derived from the phrase "religion of Abraham" in the Qur'an' I don't think it can be called a neologism. (see Abrahamic religion#Origin of the expression). // Liftarn

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldly redirected to the existing article on this topic (test anxiety). Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exam stress[edit]

Exam stress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is little more than a definition followed by vague generalizations. There are no references. I don't see anything here that isn't much better covered in Stress (medicine), so a redirect seems to be in order. Clarityfiend 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stress (medicine) per nom. There's no information of value here. Propaniac 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum. Holiday stress has references, but not much more content, so it should receive the same treatment. Clarityfiend 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Oli Filth 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Neilson[edit]

Kim Neilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This has been prodded and dleted before, and recreated. So I am treating it as a contested prod. i don't know wrestling well enough to know how notable or otherwise this person is, nor what the claims actually imply. However, no sources are cited. DES ^(talk) 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per my nom unless sources are cited to establish notability. DES ^(talk) 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ditto above. Oli Filth 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is a former wrestler from TNA. She is as notable as any other former big time performer on Wikipedia. However, the article should be rewritten. Eggy49er 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just being a wrestler doesn't automatically guarantee notability. Being an astronaut, perhaps, but not a wrestler/entertainer for a very short time. Pharmboy 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This, to me, is a non-notable biography for which I had previously recommended a speedy. --Stormbay 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable jewelry designer, nothing within this article is backed by reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Strongly urge to make use of right columns (perhaps structure this in tables, supplanting and supplementing the templates). Renaming is also an option, as is reorganizing. It's obvious merging is likely to detract from the holistic scope of this list —which some view as desirable, while others maintain some overlap to be unavoidable— and this decision is left for discussion elsewhere. El_C 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of colonial, imperial and otherwise controlled foreign territories by dominant power[edit]

List of colonial, imperial and otherwise controlled foreign territories by dominant power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete indiscriminate collection of loosely related things. Also, unnreferenced, POV and difficult to verifiably maintain. The definition says:"widely varied spectrum of colonies, protectorates, mandates, trust territories, occupied or annexed states, dependent territories and other political entities that were (or in some cases are) subjected to another sovereign power, or in (de facto unequal) personal union," There were thousands of wars and country expansions in human history during which someone "sontrolled" something else. This list may easily contain tens of thousands entries. `'Míkka 16:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and as per WP:NOT#INFO. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a fairly good job. the dates provide the basic information, & the articles on the countries will give the details,. Indiscriminate means applying no criterion for discrimination, and there is a very clear one: those area... The list further fulfills the purpose of a list by being organized usefully by controlling country. To delete an article because it "might grow too large" is a strange reason, given that we have several methods of dealing with such articles, such as splitting them. Deleting an article because it might have POV problems is equally strange, because probably all the content in WP dealing with politics or history has POV problems. Difficult to verifiably maintain is strange, since there is no evidence that it is not well maintained--and in any case is an editing problem. I remind my colleague above about the usefulness of saying per nom without further explanation--it doesn't show that one has even read the AfD, let alone the article. And what is one supposed to reply. "anti-nom"? Let's have a real discussion here. DGG (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My nomination is exactly because it is not clear. In particular, "occupied or annexed" covers basically the whole history of civilization territorial movements. The criterion is extremely vague. People even still don't agree what "colony" is. "Subjected to another sovereign power": was France "subjected to sovereign power of Vatican? After all, Pope could excommunicate a king. This article is an arbitrary collection. If there are salvageable, well-defined pieces, by all means save them before deletion. There is no problem with GFDL, because non-creative, purely compilative lists are not copyrightable. `'Míkka 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'd much rather filter this down to Nations who were colonies or something like that, where the inclusion criteria is strict. Corpx 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG (except for his last two sentences; "per nom" can be a legitimate comment). Newyorkbrad 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rewrite completely. Uhm. I need a little help parsing the opening statement .. the stated inclusion criterion of this list is convoluted. This list needs to either be pared down and renamed to reflect some kind of quantifiable purpose, or just deleted outright. As it stands it is open to include literally any political entity in the world. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poorly conceived, poorly defined, poorly titled, far too open to debate. I would say it is rather indescriminate, as the criteria are far too general, vague, and contains far too many poorly defined terms or concepts. Categories would work far better in organizing this disparate material. Agent 86 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, that kind of lists are difficult to maintain and verify, and since we already have that information splitted in other articles (e.g. Antarctic territorial claims, British Empire, etc) such a huge list is unnecessary. Phrases such as American Empire may attract edit wars or flaming, and as Agent 86 said categories would work better. —ShiningEyes 23:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete -it appears too vague to be functional in its current form. --Haemo 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But Japan was occupied by Allied forces after WWII. :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Damm! I forgot... uh, there's a slice of Antarctica that's not claimed by any country?...--Victor falk 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding? Of course not. Russians claim even the North pole! `'Míkka 16:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True there is a slice, although the USA (& the Russians) reserves the right to claim, but the Antarctic Treaty System currently over-rides all claims.

• Keep May just need some clean-up in areas & better titled, but overall still informative & more sourcing could be looked into, if given the time & effort to get them. If defined better or even specifically split up in separate articles may help keep it in better shape. That-Vela-Fella 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is an excellent, intelligently organized table that sums up the history of colonialism and the age of imperialism about as concisely as I've ever seen. Without judgment, it simply lists when a current nation was once under the administration of another nation. It wasn't that long ago (relatively speaking) that the sun never set on the British Empire. Now it sets at 8:35 pm, tomorrow at 8:33. Mandsford 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A highly useful list for historical research -- though I think a chronological scheme of organization would suit it better. RandomCritic 01:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First, I'd like to point out that this list is highly redundant to List of empires, which is much more informative and better organised (and that's saying a lot, since it's tagged to be cleaned-up!); many of them have infoboxes that in turn list territories.

To be useful, this list would have to be a table, with on one axis, every year from 1500 to 2007, and on the other axis, every colony, protectorate, possession, dominion, satellite, dependency, mandate, condominium, province, and occupied territory that has switched allegiance at one time or the other. That list would be slightly cumbersome--Victor falk 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Consensus was that all articles failed to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. The closest to being a keep was Distorted Penguins, which had only once received non-trivial coverage in a reliable, published work independent from the subject: [19]

Pro-Gravity Records[edit]

Pro-Gravity Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Record label from western Maryland. No evidence of notability, no independent sources. Same author is busily creating articles on this label's affiliated acts and their albums, all of which have the same notability problems. Listing them below. NawlinWiki 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Also including:[reply]

• Midnight:30
• Midnight: 30 (duplicate)
• Plan:Be
• Plan: Be (duplicate)
• Truce II Headrush
• The Enigmatic
• List of musical artists from Cumberland, Maryland
• Distorted Penguins
• 200 North
• CMD Represent, Vol. 1
• Billiam Rockwell
• Watching the World Die
• Antiform (album)

• My argument

Here is the gist of my argument, as explained to "NawlinWiki" on that admin's talk page:

• Hey I dont' know if this is the correct way to communicate with you or not, but here it is ... I mean, I see what you're saying about Ice Records vs. Pro-Gravity and all. But as far as noteworthiness goes, again, it's an Indpendent label with about 8 acts and 10 albums -- with 4 albums in the pipeline. Yeah, it's only artists around Allegany County, Maryland, but why does that in and of itself make it not worthy of inclusion? I can produce articles on most of the bands on the list from the local paper (some aren't accessible on the Website any longer), but I have a feeling those articles won't be up to snuff either. I mean, Pro-Gravity is legit (disclaimer: I am not Pro-Gravity records) ... people around here know who they are, and it's who everyone tries to release an album with. They're recognized within a good two to three hours of here and respected for their DIY/Indie footprint.

It seems as though if an artist isn't on a major record label or doesn't release a song that charts, they're going to be deleted, which (IMHO) flies in the face of what Wikipedia is about.

I am obviously coming from an angle of trying to increase the presence of musicians from Allegany County/Cumberland, Maryland on the Web, including Wiki, so I wont' deny that, but I feel almost being discriminated against b/c we're from a smaller area. Our local newspaper barely pays attention to us, though articles do exist on most of the bands on this list. And we're three hours from any MAJOR newspapers (DC, Baltimore, Pittsburgh) so there's nothing in those papers but rewritten press releases. These aren't bands that started yesterday or exist only in the artists' minds ... 200 North has played in Europe, Distorted Penguins plays (literally) hundreds of shows a year as far away as Oregon. I'm not putting up articles on the smaller players in our area. But, as a reperesentation of an independent label that is making it through Word of Mouth and via the Web and DIY ethic, Pro-Gravity Records, its artists and the musicians of Cumberland/Allegany County are certainly noteworthy.

Please tell me what I must do to save these articles from deletion. Lawofone 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some links: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

These are just the first few I could track down. There are plenty more. Lawofone 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pro-Gravity Records as lacking in reliable sources and likely notability; neutral on the bands right now until I've got more time to look into them one by one. to Lawofone: The label needs to have been covered in multiple non-trivial reliable sources to define its notability - everything needs to be sourced to be verifiable. The bands need to be able to meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC for articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking over the bands, deleteall but Distorted Penguins as failing WP:MUSIC and WP:RS, as well as the albums for each; neutral on Distorted Penguins, with a lean towards a weak keep if someone turns up non-trivial independent mentions of their national touring as well as more reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless, of course, the author has some verifiable sources that show that this label or related acts are notable as required by WP criteria. —Travis^talk 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I"ve got what I feel is the necessary references, which I'll add after voting is finished (assuming it survives). Lawofone 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add them right away, as additional sources will make a difference on the opinions being expressed here. If you wait, the articles are all likely to be deleted - the sources won't do a whole lot afterwards... Tony Fox (arf!) 18:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm in 3 of the bands on this label. I have no idea why someone would even dispute this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannorth (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 July 2007— Briannorth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep This is silly. The label itself is legitimate as are the associated bands. Both print and web sources have been produced to prove this. What's the problem? Cdadamly 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources really meet the need for multiple, non-trivial independent references to verify the claims in the article. The label itself just hasn't developed enough notability to meet guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How are independent newspaper articles not acceptable? Are the guidelines tougher to get a band on here than, oh, anything else in Wikipedia? If there was no independent verification, then I'd agree, but they've met the criteria.

• Local newspapers write about local bands. I've done it. When magazines, newspapers, websites, etc. write about bands from outside their local area, that indicates they're developing notability outside of their home town, and that moves them towards meeting the music guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that there is no notability for these acts outside their hometown, but you're basically admitting that this evidence proves that they are notable there. From what I see in the guidelines, they only require notability, not world-wide notability nor even national notability.Cdadamly 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Although we're definitely starting to go around in circles here. But how can these bands not get a page when this does? I'm in no way callign for that article's deletion, but I GUARANTEE these bands' pages will get more hits than Archibald Sturrock. What's the harm of giving a person out there who may hear of 200 North (or Distorted Penguins, or Pro-Gravity) from being able to go to Wikipedia and find information? I, for one, think it HEIGHTENS Wikipedia's standing for people to be able to find such information. I know that I mainly use Wikipedia to read about random, obscure tidbits. It tickles me to come here and find articles on such topics. That's when Wikipedia proves its value to me; not its ability to give me information on Britney Spears, but its ability to give me information on things like this. Lawofone 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, generally. Especially when the article pointed to is of a person who has books written about him, holds a patent for a steam boiler improvement, invented the steam tender, managed a major railroad for years, etc. Nonetheless, because one article exists is not a good reason for another to exist; we still need those multiple reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree; the existence of other, more trivial articles shows that certain articles are being singled out for some reason. Like the above example, the Tristate Zoological Park. Why aren't we discussing that article's deletion? Not that I think we should; there's room enough for both (and plenty more) on Wikipedia. Truce m3 11:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Generally, I think the notability standards are a bit overwrought and largely unnecessary. Major labels/groups/bands gain notoriety by having enough capital to promote product. This doesn’t necessarily make them notable in any meaningful sense of the word; and because a small label/group/band doesn’t have the ability to buy ‘notability’ in the way that better funded labels/groups/bands do makes them no less notable. I don’t see how there isn’t room enough for all. SKOOCH 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC) — SKOOCH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I think I basically agree with the above posts. Print/Web exists. Who cares if they're not big, they've met the criteria. I always side with keeping articles, not deleting them. Truce m3 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I kind of resent being tagged as a single-use account or whatever. I've been on wikipedia for three or four years now. It's a cheap attempt to render my opinion irrelevant.

• My apologies, then; your edit history under this account consists of seven edits outside of this debate, which leads to the assumption. Please remember to sign your posts.

Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. The label seems to be marginally notable within the state of Maryland, but a detailed search finds very little in the way of reliable sources regarding the label and its bands. None of the acts seem to have ever charted on a major chart or done anything else that makes them pass WP:MUSIC. Most of the hits for the bands are MySpace and similar non-reliable pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, I must recall Cdadamly's point above: You allow that the label (and, by association, its acts) are notable in Maryland; notability guidelines do not indicate what level an act/label must be notable on, only that they must be notable. So ... Lawofone 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a couple minutes, so I found a small handful of references on the web. There are definitely more to be found. This was a cursory search.

Review of The Enigmaic by Truce II Headrush

Review of The Trend's self-titled album

Search for 200 North on this page for a review of WtWD

Review of 200 North/Esteem split at top of page

Also, according to the guidlines regarding notability, a band has to meet only one of the criteria, one of them being, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Since Brendan Ekstrom, the guitarist from 200 North later went on to join This Day Forward and is now a member of Circa Survive, this should spare 200 North from deletion (and I would assume Pro-Gravity Records, the label that currently supports their 3 Song Demo and split with Esteem, as well.

Cdadamly 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, the criteria lists "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city," which should spare Midnight:30 and its derivitaves. I mean, Midnight:30, essentially IS Western Maryland's hip-hop scene. Again, being the representative of a LARGE local scene is not required, merely "of the local scene of a city." Midnight:30, and its derivatives, are the most prominent representatives of hip-hop within Allegany County and beyond, so they easily qualify. Lawofone 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The bulk of these articles fit our CSD G11 criteria if you ask me. Burntsauce 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of us are not quite as familiar with WikiAcronyms, so praytell, what does CSD G11 mean?

The above bands fall within the notability guidlines, as they have documentation showing them as notable (remember that "notability" is completely different from "popularity"). Even those contesting the inclusion of these articles have admitted that the bands are notable in Maryland, or at least in Western Maryland. Also, 200 North stands even more easily due to its ties to Circa Survive (a band that I challenge any of you to challenge the notability of). However, I note that this doesn't really matter. According to those same guidelines, we could argue the articles' inclusion or exclusion regardless of notability ("Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.") This is especially troubling, not to mention a shakey basis for deletion, as there is a separate debate (started by CharlesGillingham) going on on the talk page for music notability

So, what types of sources are you actually looking for in order to call off this witch hunt? Give the editors who are currently working on these pages some real information on what you want, and we/they can provide it.

Editing is greatly preferred over deletion.

Cdadamly 18:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Verifiability is the most important policies in determining whether an article is suitable. We need verifiable reliable sources - articles that state these bands are prominent representatives of a notable style as mentioned above, that aren't trivial mentions; we need indications that there are people writing, in established publications that have an editorial policy of some note, articles that indicate the subjects of the articles are notable; in essence, we need proof that the claims in the articles are true. I haven't yet seen any independent references to the record label, nor to most of the bands, that make me feel WP:V or WP:MUSIC are satisfied. Anyhow, this is my last opinion on the matter, unless some firm references come forward; it's up to the closing administrator to decide. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Give me till Friday, and I can provide the information on Truce II Headrush and The Enigmatic -- they'll be in the paper then.

• Keep 200 North

Independent review of 200 North / Esteem split CD

The band's first release was on Eulogy Recordings as verified by the following: [30] [31] [32], and Eulogy has also released albums by Dashboard Confessional, This Day Forward, and Unearth, all undeniabley notable bands.

Also, Brendan Ekstrom, guitarist from 200 North, went on to join This Day Forward and later, Circa Survive as documented here, here, and here.

Cdadamly 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Distorted Penguins

The fact that most of these articles are from local sources should not matter. They are independent sources.

Announcement of final show

Mention in letter to the editor from a Cumberland native living in TX

Mention in article on Frostburg State University compilation CD

Article on release of CMD Represent, Vol. 1 by Pre-Gravity, including references to Distorted Penguins

mention in letter to the editor regarding local radio

DC101 reference (the band is played on the Washington, DC station)

Announcement of Distorted Penguins show with Blues Traveler, Nine Days, and Mos Def

Cdadamly 21:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • At least we're fighting the good fight; when will the decision be made? Truce m3 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 200 North, Distorted Penguins, Pro-Gravity

This is a virgin Wikipedia post/edit. I came across this page after reading an article pertaining to Pro-Gravity's most recent release:

Newspaper feature on Pro-Gravity album release

I don't have anything terribly new to add to this debate. The two potential bases for deletion seem to be reliable sources and notability. The link above provides yet another reliable source. Others have been furnished in previous posts. Simply put, verifiability does not seem to be an issue here. That leaves notability as a potential basis for deletion. I admit that I am a Wikipedia newbie; however, based on my perusal of the guidelines for music it seems clear that the Pro-Gravity label as well as several of the bands (200 North and Distorted Penguins in particular) satisfy at least one of the listed notability criteria. The Pro-Gravity label meets item 7 (most notable representative...of the local scene of the city) as since its inception the label has put out the vast majority of meaningful local records in the hip-hop, rock and indie genres. As noted in earlier posts, 200 North meets item 6 (Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable) while Distorted Penguins meets item 4 (have toured nationally).

Clearly, interesting questions lurk here regarding the appropriate geographic scope for notability in music. Under the current criteria, however, Pro-Gravity and the bands mentioned above should be kept. Perhaps the criteria should be revised to more clearly indicate the appropriate geographic scope for notability; however, this seems like a discussion that should take place at a higher level (i.e., elsewhere). Mrtrigonometrybedsheets 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update -- Truce II Headrush article now has references. Working on the others. Lawofone 21:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; what few sources there are in this article are self-publish or otherwise not reliable. Not notable. — Coren ^(talk) 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn.-Wafulz 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maravilla[edit]

Maravilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maravilla about two years ago. The sources presented are dubious at best, and I feel the subject is unverifiable by reliable sources. The material in this article seems like original research. Google search doesn't bring up substantial sources. Wafulz 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep www.streetgangs.com seems to be an at least somewhat reliabel source. More and better sources ar highly desireable, of course. DES ^(talk) 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That source doesn't actually offer any information. It basically says "This is a gang, this is where they operate"-Wafulz 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's irrelevant how many sources for this article exist online, as the print sources are more than enough to justify an article. Look here [33]. Sometimes I think there's a prejudice on Wikipedia in favor of online sources and against print sources. For accuracy, I'll take a book or newspaper over a blog anyday. A blogger is nothing more than a guy with an opinion and an Internet connection. Qworty 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take those sources any day. Nobody is promoting weblogs. From the way this article is written, I assumed the article was about an overall gang rather than a neighbourhood.-Wafulz 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walfulz, in view of those sources, does that mean you're withdrawing the nom. if they are added. DGG (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. I think I might've misunderstood the original topic- it does need to be rewritten so it actually makes sense though.-Wafulz 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'delete. El_C 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applications in cryptography[edit]

Applications in cryptography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have studied cryptography since 1987 and worked professionally with it since 1999. I say the article is really bad and redundant. That is, it tries to describe things that already are described better in other Wikipedia articles. And the article seems to be abandoned by its creator.

The article seems to have the following contents:

• The first section describes a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator (CSPRNG).

The second section is about stream ciphers:

• First it talks about the one-time pad encryption method.
• Then it says we can take a shortcut and use a stream cipher instead of the one-time pad.
• Then it says we can build a stream cipher by using a CSPRNG to produce the keystream for the stream cipher.
• Then it discusses security of CSPRNGs and if secure PRNGs really exist. That is, if one-way functions really exist or not.

So basically we can make the article a redirect to stream cipher or perhaps to CSPRNG. But since the article has such a bad name I would prefer that the article is deleted. David Göthberg 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly written, over technical, covers only a fraction of the subjct matter inmplied by the title, redundant with bettr existing artiles, and as per nom. After deletion, recreate as a redirect to Cryptography as this is a pluasible search target. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as above. Oli Filth 17:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is already covered well enough at the other articles, and "Applications in cryptography" doesn't make sense as an article idea. Mangojuice^talk 17:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can imagine a useful survery/summery-style article at that title, but this isn't even a start on such a thing. DES ^(talk) 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't. Cryptography is a field of applications, so a survey or summary style article really belongs at Cryptography, or a reasonable fork-out of tat article. Mangojuice^talk 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dabble in crypto myself, and the nom knows what he's talking about. This article is redundant, in addition to being poorly written. Spazure 04:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The original author, "yaniv.pariente" is no longer in Wikipedia (created article 3 months ago). If a cryptographer who understands
• |Pr_s←U_n[A(s) = 1] − Pr_s←U_l(n) [A(Gen(s)) = 1]| <1/p(n).

feels the article should be deleted, that's good enough for me. Mandsford 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Bank Monarch Drive Elementary[edit]

Beaver Bank Monarch Drive Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't assert notability of this school. Nothing on Google indicates that it might be notable. Oli Filth 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Come on Oli, the article is less than a day old. Give it a few months (considering it is summer vacation for those that are most familiar with the school) for it to be improved. I added a stub tag. To not give it time to be improved goes against the wiki spirit if you ask me. Postcard Cathy 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cathy, if people around then have evidence of notability, they can make a new article. There seems to be no indication that it is notable, and I'm sure that they author could place one their if they wanted to and it was possible; the idea has been indicated to them. Alternatively, if there's a suitable article to merge it into, that would be fine to my mind, possibly preferable to deletion. SamBC 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but but most schools have more than 12 or so hours to make their case.Postcard Cathy 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Few elementary or primary schools are notable, and I see no particular indication that this one is. if it is, the article can be recreated later with sources and reasons. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This school is about as notable as Paris Hilton's little finger. Qworty 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this because....... Given the amount of time this article has been on and people have been able to add to it, you must be a mind reader.Postcard Cathy 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, schools are hardly ever notable and this one is no exception. ♠PMC♠ 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live one town over from Harvard and MIT. I will tell them on Monday. Postcard Cathy 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major universities are very often notable. Elementary schools very rarely are. DES ^(talk) 22:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about where PMC is from, but in quite a lot of the english-speaking world 'school' is used only to refer to education up to and including age 18 (ie, 6th form in England, high school in the US), not to refer to colleges and universities. SamBC 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMC is from Vancouver, and here, generally, "school" refers to elementary, middle, and high school, not post-secondary. ♠PMC♠ 07:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete In general--and only in general-- elementary (primary) schools are not notable ,so there is no reason to suppose that sources for notability will be added. This AfD will however run for 4 more days and should not be closed earlier--and if notability can be shown, so much the better. There is no prejudice against re-creation of a better article if it can later be done. DGG (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Elementary school. No notability in article or anywhere else that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, both Google and Yahoo suggest that this article fails WP:N categorically. To the people voting for keeping - can you explain me why, in the first place, do we have this article here? Read WP:NOT, please. —ShiningEyes 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was condense and merge into Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School Dance Marathon[edit]

Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School Dance Marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I seconded this prod and it was contested by IIRC an anonymous editor who very well could be original author. Anyway, the point is still the same - teh edit summary indicated the author felt outside sources would help stave off a deletion but in reality, regardless of the sources, it is still a middle school charitable event. If we allow this article to stay, it will set a precedent for all other school fundraisers. Hey, buy my chocolate to send us to disney! Postcard Cathy 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Original prod said only source was school announcement. OK, so now we have a newspaper source. But it also still reads like an essay! Postcard Cathy 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It still fails the requirement in WP:N for significant coverage. The Daily Tar Heel article doesn't count; it's about UNC's marathon and not WF-R's. The N&O blurb doesn't count; it's one paragraph in their School Notes column. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BAKESALE. Or just WP:N and a final song of WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the school itself isn't notable, then neither are the dances held there. Qworty 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I don't think wikipedia has a concept of precedents, each article stands on its own; this one clearly isn't notable. -Steve Sanbeg 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People here seem to have very long memories and if they say well you kept xyz article for that reason, you should keep mine for that reason. I know I used that argument to delete several articles and categories and it worked. Cathy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.146.30.27 (talk • contribs).

• Delete. Nothing about this is notable or worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 23:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in a hypothetical "perfect" wikipedia, this would have been deleted as hopelessly and unsalvagably non-notable within seconds of its creation. Embarassing for everyone involved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename and expand into Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School. Normally I feel junior highs are non-notable, this caught my eye and that they are doing something popular 65 years ago to raise funds is innovative and fascinating. I'll help with the rewrite. Chris 02:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would be valid to include within the context of an article on the middle school...if there were an article on the middle school for it to go into. I do not think that this should carry the school's article; it should be a section within a larger article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion after page move[edit]

I've added a break here since User:Kintetsubuffalo has boldly moved the article to Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School and is expanding it. In its current state, it's a shell, but I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt now. Let's keep the article on WF-R MS, but let's delete the redirect with the Dance Marathon title. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as an article on the School. Google news has plenty of material here with which to expand this article and there are enough sources available to easily meet WP:N. TerriersFan 03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am the author of this article. I am very new to Wikipedia and I am a bit confused as to why so many want to delete my entry. We are proudly one of the only middle schools in the nation that has this type of project. The project has been recognized by Penn State's THON (the largest student run philanthropy in the world -- and THON also is on Wikipedia) and the UNC-Chapel Hill Dance Marathon. UNC has adopted our school's project for this coming school year. Regarding concern about other school fundraisers, please know this is not a school fundraiser. The school does not make one dollar from this event and it is truly a unique event for a middle school. I have added other things to the original article that I hope will help improve the status of it.

It is my goal to expand the idea of middle school students helping people and giving back to the community. Our goal is teaching students to Pay It Forward. It is true that the event is not notable on a national scale and that is why I put this on wikipedia. I am trying to gain support from others to encourage public schools in America to give kids opportunities to make a positive difference. This is part of teaching our youth to be good citizens and to care about other people. It honestly has been disheartening to see so many people wanting to delete this article. Some of my students are excited to see the event they helped organize on Wikipedia since we are trying to make positive changes together in education today.

If I am in violation of a wikipedia policy, please tell me exactly how I can fix it so the article will be accepted and supported. As I said, this is the very first thing I have ever posted on Wikipedia and I am not sure how to proceed. I do apologize that some seem to find this a huge waste of everyone's time and not notable.

As for references, we did have a very large write up in the local paper, but they do not have it on their website anymore. I could only post references that are still on-line. Thank you everyone for your time. More references will be coming as the project grows. I will also add other things about the school since it seems that having a heading under the school is more appropriate. Thank you to those of you who helped make that change. I appreciate your time and your recognition that I am just trying to do something good for kids here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psuallegator (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wake_Forest-Rolesville_Middle_School"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.